Musicians have been taking inspiration from, borrowing from, and reinterpreting other artists throughout history. This is what makes for the rich tapestry of musical genres & styles, and the evolution of music itself.

So may great hits are reinterpretations of older less-known numbers, often as tributes to the musicians who wrote or played the originals.

What if the estates of Bobby Russell won against Reba McEntire, or the estates of Sonny Boy Williamson or Willie Dixon won against Led Zeppelin, heck, pick pretty much any old blues musician and you can claim they've been ripped off by newer bands. Freddie King's estate would be rolling in dough and their heirs would be set forever.

The problem lies with copyright laws, the way they are today. There will always be greedy money-grubbing lawyers and people wanting to make easy money by exploiting this system. This goes beyond copyright laws. Patent laws anyone? What if Volvo had decided to charge an arm and a leg for their 3-point seatbelt patent instead of letting competitors use the idea without charge? Nothing wrong about that, they may have made a ton of money (justifiably so), but they looked at the broader picture concerning public safety. Would Chrysler have done that had they invented the 3-point seatbelt? Probably not. I'm just trying to illustrate how two parties could make completely opposite decisions both compliant with copyright or patent law.